381–390 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect he is referring to iq tests. They have a pretty high correlation to success and are banned.
I wonder how much correlation with IQ is allowed before custom algorithms questions qualify as an illegal IQ test.
Algorithmic tests have a pretty low bar to clear in IT jobs. Using them for secretaries or lab technicians is another story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This I think is a very a good point. The scariest point about Lazlo Block's book is that he is very against the idea that people can improve or be trained better. To him there is this idea of predestination. You're either always good and always have been, or you're not good and won't get better and there is nothing Google can do. I feel like as a company you could exploit a lot of value by just hiring people and trai…
One wonders what exactly happened to this industry, why instead of training, companies are offloading the work to universities, MOOCs, and boot camps.
However there is some challenge with having experienced people. They simply can't answer the screening after a while and can't get hired. And who's gonna teach the juniors if you don't have seniors???
Personally, I moved to finance. I find that experience, domain knowledge and maturity is valued more there :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking up the actual experiment, you're completely misrepresenting the conclusions. Here: https://www.google.com/amp/business.financialpost.com/entrep... These were their conclusions: 1. The ability to hire well is random. This is referring to individuals, not the system as a whole. 2. Forget brain-teasers. Focus on behavioral questions in interviews, rather than hypotheticals 3. Consistency matters for leaders 4. G…
Ouch, "making stuff up". That's harsh, my man. Thus far I've made absolutely nothing up in this thread, or indeed in any others under this account. And you're using a PR puff piece written by Google HR to discount years of personal experience that I'm sharing here. You're free to not believe me, but let's not level accusations without evidence, OK?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would almost assuredly stop the interview at this point and try to figure out what your malfunction is. To me any question where the obvious answer is "I can trivially look all that up in the man pages" is a gigantic red flag that I don't want to work at that place. If I'm feeling curious that day, I might begin a conversation about what you think you are testing for with that question, as I've spent a fair bit of…
That's fine. If you go into something assuming that anything you don't understand is a malfunction, and you excuse your rude behavior with your mood and/or caffeine level, you're probably not the kind of person I'd want to spend a lot of time working with. That said, as I've explained elsewhere in the thread, the point isn't to see how many they know. It's to see that a) they know some portion of it that people doing…
The other problem with this question is that, by its phrasing, it implies that there is a right answer. If I can name more ps flags than an other person, I'm a better candidate. Which when put that way, I think points out its faults. Maybe you don't intend for that to be true, but you'd have to fight your own cognitive biases pretty hard to not at least bias towards the person that can name 17 flags off the top of their head, or the one that teaches you a new flag combo you didn't know. Even though those things are likely not that good of predictors of a good candidate.
You've said what you really want to get to, is can they admit when they don't know something. If that is important to your hiring process (and I'd encourage you to validate that with data), ask them a question no one could know the answer to. Ask the same question to every candidate, and grade it purely pass fail. Did they say "I don't know" or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nonsense. First step is to acknowledge that interviewing doesn't work very well. You can't keep deluding yourself because you haven't found a better way. Accept reality. This is one of the biggest problems I see with business guys today. They want absolute certainty in a world which can't offer it. Start accepting that there is a lot of stuff we don't know and can't know at the moment and we simply have to work towar…
I still don't understand why employers can't simply set up a two week "trial contract" where as promising candidates simply work for two weeks so everyone can actually see and judge, with real world empirical data, how well the person does in the environment at the actual job. Yes yes..of course I know this could be gamed as well, but no matter...you can't really argue that this wouldn't be magnitudes better then the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to present data that shows flaws with today's interviewing. It's a lot harder to present a better way of predicting candidate performance in the workplace, along with substantial data that indicates it's better than today's methods. Corporations would love more effective ways to determine effectiveness/performance before hiring. Interviewing is terrible, but that doesn't mean there is a better option.
That feels a bit like saying we should just stick to blood letting and leeches because we don't know any more effective way of treating disease. Just because we don't have a superior alternative doesn't actually mean the current method is effective.
Leeches are often used in literal modern hospitals in the developed world as an effective treatment for certain ills.
B)
If we had no alternative, we should stick to it, but look at other things in the meantime. You seem to be advocating doing nothing at all, which is trivially easy to show works for no-one
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That feels a bit like saying we should just stick to blood letting and leeches because we don't know any more effective way of treating disease. Just because we don't have a superior alternative doesn't actually mean the current method is effective.
A) Leeches are often used in literal modern hospitals in the developed world as an effective treatment for certain ills. B) If we had no alternative, we should stick to it, but look at other things in the meantime. You seem to be advocating doing nothing at all, which is trivially easy to show works for no-one
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They pay more than AMZN/MS/FB/AAPL/etc. for equal level, but are stingier with levels. Google is more generous to good performers via bonuses once you are working there, but if you have two offers in hand, you are going to find Google highly resistant to negotiating. The notion of people taking a pay cut to work at Google sounds plausible to me. If one's goal is to maximize compensation (particularly in the short t…
> Google is more generous to good performers via bonuses once you are working there, but if you have two offers in hand, you are going to find Google highly resistant to negotiating. The notion of people taking a pay cut to work at Google sounds plausible to me. I don't think that's true. While google is by all accounts (including in my personal experience) unwilling to move significantly on base salary, they'll happ…
Perhaps I dealt with a particularly nasty Google recruiter. I felt like the recruiter had misrepresented the health benefits and relocation package once I got the actual offer letter and related paperwork.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet, literally every professionally employed person is in their current gig via that process. It works good enough.
Counterexample: I did not apply to, nor interview for, my current gig, and I'm not cheating by working for myself. And I bet almost everyone reading this has worked with at least one person they think shouldn't have survived the interview, and that person was making a boatload because they convinced the boss they're brilliant. Meanwhile 90% of their day was spent talking about how great they are, and 10% creating new…
End of the day, everything evens out. People add the structure they need when they hire people. If your engineering interview process for some detail oriented gig is buzzword trivia with the CIO, the company will probably tank anyway. Conversely, if you do some nerd-fest whiteboard interview for a CTO in a bigger organization, you're probably not getting the right outcome either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"- Lack of self awareness and introspection. Not being able to give specific examples of times you've made a mistake and how you learned from it." I'd venture that not being able to answer this question and others like off the top of their head is less an indication that they are unaware of/don't learn from their mistakes than it is an indication how well they practice for bullshit interview questions and can give yo…
Can confirm. My work life has been smooth and fairly boring, and I have piss-poor autobiographical memory anyway, so I pretty much have to make those up to have anything worth telling. Maybe start from some half-remembered kernel of truth, but it's all BS from there, because it's all I've got. Have to rehearse them so I'm not making shit up on the fly--too much risk of tripping up, or making it too flashy, or acciden…
I know it's phony, but job interviews are sales pitches. Preparation helps.